Originally posted by Hauldren Collider
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostThese are, again, corner cases. What we're referring to are elective abortions by parents who simply do not want the burden of raising a child, or the burden of raising a child who might have a non-life-threatening disability. What you are arguing against is a complete strawman.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Krill View PostThe thread has already gone over illegal abortions, but frankly what would legally happen to a pregnant women if she tried to overdose to abort a fetus? Or self harmed? Viability is reasonable place to start with the legalities simply because short of locking up women that try to abort a foetuses (because it's obviously not their foetus, right?) there isn't much you can do to women that want an abortion.
That's what this comes down to. If Jon really cares about the embryos, then he needs to safeguard them from potential illegal abortions after he manages to make abortions illegal. If a women tries to abort a foetus, lock her up so she doesn't do it again. Or if she gets pregnant lock her up until she gives birth.
Great idea
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostWell, it certainly beats any "can it think" criteria, which are just plain daft IMO. If you're going by the presence or absence of thoughts, you could likely get away with wasting pretty much any infant less than six weeks old. Unless he's a bloody genius, he's not thinking anything that couldn't be thought better by a stray dog.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostThese are, again, corner cases.
I like this reasoning. "It's rare, so we can pretend the principles involved in them don't exist and hope that if we stay quiet it'll all go away. LALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALALA!!"
In numbers, what's the tipping point you work to, where you're forced to conclude it's an issue to be discussed?The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
-
Originally posted by Krill View Post
Actually, as a healthcare professional we're expected to be non-judgmental. Whether I believe abortion (or euthanasia, or chemotherapy, or even ****ing blood transfusions) to be unethical because of my beliefs shouldn't affect the care that I give to my patients. Just think of all those catholic doctors and nurses that refuse to perform specific medical treatment (even Jons' hospital and blood transfusion drama)A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Comment
-
I've always been slightly puzzled by the Christian position on both contraception and abortion when the Bible is silent on both issues. Abortifacients were certainly used at the time, and were an important trade commodity around the mediterranean. Given the exacting detail of laws in books like Deuteronomy you'd have thought it a bit of a startling omission.
Certainly medieval Islam was fine with abortion, up to 120 days after conception.The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny View PostLet's test this.
Take the example of a woman who attempted to prevent pregancy with both conventional and emergency contraception. Both failed. It is now two weeks past conception. She wants a simple abortifacient to end this two-week pregnancy. Her reason for this is that she simply doesn't want to give birth.
How do you handle it?
Well, given that it doesn't even have a brain yet (neural tube develops during fifth week), I'd say she should be free to choose.A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Comment
-
There you go, Fun. You are actually in favour of abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience. You just have opinions on how far the pregnancy should be allowed to progress for that to still apply, and that's fine.The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
-
MRT, that's called a shock tactic not an argument.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
I don't see how the situation with sick children changes if they are before birth or 5 years after birth.
It still can't be used to justify the murder of innocents.
"Oh, my life will change and I will be unable to go out as much if I have a child, better abort!"
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny View PostI've always been slightly puzzled by the Christian position on both contraception and abortion when the Bible is silent on both issues. Abortifacients were certainly used at the time, and were an important trade commodity around the mediterranean. Given the exacting detail of laws in books like Deuteronomy you'd have thought it a bit of a startling omission.
Certainly medieval Islam was fine with abortion, up to 120 days after conception.
Comment
Comment